Posted on 07/14/2003 8:59:22 PM PDT by Utah Girl
On the ground floor of the White House is the Map Room, so-called because it was here that Franklin Roosevelt used to get his briefings on the progress of World War II. Over the mantel is the last map FDR saw before his death. It shows American, British, and Soviet troops racing toward Berlin. It also shows a frightening concentration of German forces in the Nazis’ last redoubt, the mountains of Bavaria.
We now know of course that this last redoubt did not exist. American intelligence had been deceived. And it’s possible that policymakers also deceived themselves. Roosevelt, for reasons of his own, wanted to let the Russians have the honor – and suffer the losses – of an assault on Berlin. The belief in the last redoubt was a very useful belief: It justified FDR’s wish to avoid joining the battle for Berlin.
Intelligence is a very uncertain business. And there’s no doubt that consumers of intelligence tend to be quicker to accept uncertain information that confirms their prejudices than uncertain information that calls those prejudices into question. Since consumers of intelligence are usually prejudiced in favor of doing little, most of the time they prefer intelligence that errs on the side of minimizing dangers.
9/11 changed the way American officials looked at the world. So when they got reports that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Niger, you can understand why they took the information seriously. That information has since turned out to be false – and its falsity has generated a major political controversy, as bitter-end opponents of this president and the war on terror try to exploit the administration’s error.
The controversy turns on the fact that some in the CIA doubted the story from the start. Their warnings were apparently disregarded, that is assuming that they were adequately communicated in the first place. Why? One reason may be that the CIA’s warnings on Iraq matters had lost some of their credibility in the 1990s. The agency was regarded by many in the Bush administration as reflexively and implacably hostile to any activist policy in Iraq. Those skeptics had come to believe that the agency was slanting its information on Iraq in order to maneuver the administration into supporting the agency’s own soft-line policies.
So when the Bush administration got skeptical news on the Niger uranium matter, it would not be surprising if mid-level policymakers mentally filed it under the heading “more of the same from the CIA,” filed it, and discounted it. The tendency was redoubled by the origin of the Niger-debunking report: Joseph C. Wilson. For more about him, see Clifford May's important post in last week's NRO. The result was the strange formulation in the State of the Union speech, in which the Niger story was cited – but attributed to British intelligence.
The story is an embarrassment for all concerned. But it no more undercuts the case for the Iraq war than FDR’s mistake in 1945 retroactively discredited the case for World War II. The United States did not overthrow Saddam Hussein because he was buying uranium in Niger. It overthrow him because he was a threat to the United States, to his neighbors, to his own people, and to the peace of a crucial region of the globe. All of that is just as true as it was on the day the President delivered his speech containing the errant 16 words – and the war is just as right and justified today as it was then.
Well, good. But I can guan-damn-tee you that after this past four years of politics, I'll be looking quite closely at those who claim to be "not R's or D's".
You know those know it alls, they think they know it all. OWK actually revels in his perceived intellectual supieriority.(per reply #676)
I don't like the education bill. I have tried to look at it from the point that it has accountability, but I still don't like it and I think it's too expensive.
However, I am willing to overlook that when I think about how ANY democrat would have handled Kyoto, judicial appointments, and most importantly, the war on terror.
What was that? "Controlled anarchist"? Would you elaborate?
I guess you didn't get it after all: no one here, in the least, in any meaning of the notion, is taken with you.
You really need to get over us being totally over you.
It was obvious sarcasm (laced with truth) based on prior exchanges with the guy.
Sheeeeesh.....get over it.
But for the record, I don't always disregard the opinions of those with other beliefs, no matter how much I disagree with that belief. However in the case of a true atheist, I write them off as pretty hopeless; literally and figuratively speaking.
I hope this satisfies your peculiar interest in my comment.
Here is a thread, read post 39 written by south hack. It may help you to look at the glass being half full, with the outlook of one day having it full.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/942035/posts?page=39#39
Ah, you're the one who brought that up, not me.
But if it makes you feel better to keep saying nobody is taken with me, keep doing it; if it's therapy you need, be my guest.
Rational Anarchist.
Have you read Heinlein's "Moon is a Harsh Mistress".
If not, invest a couple of days.
A particular character (Professor De La Paz) helps establish a new government on a lunar colony toward the end of the book.
An intersting model.
An executive branch, and a legislative branch.
The legislative branch is composed of a two houses.
The lower house makes laws, requiring a 2/3 majority for passage.
The upper house may only repeal laws, and requires only a 1/3 vote. Only those laws which are truly legitimate can get passed and stay that way.
Any, De La Paz is a self-described rational anarchist.
In short, he chooses to live to maximize his potential for freedom in an inherently unfree world, holding closely to a moral code for guidance, and rendering occasional aid to those whose efforts might help advance the state of liberty.
I rather like the idea.
Me either.
I really think that "a cheap suit serenade" might be beneath your dignity. But I don't know you very well...LOL!
As I mentioned to JR, I'm just getting tired of holding my nose when voting. President Bush is an excellent CIC, and he has eliminated some things and done good by others, but has taken a socialist position on others - and I don't believe for expediency. He's a "compassionate conservative", remember? Actually, most of the problem is with Congress.
De La Paz suggests this form for those who are predisposed to governmental structure, and will likely seek some state construct anyway.
(thereby aiding in the ultimate advancement of liberty)
But at the same time lives his own life outside the bounds of any state, appealing instead to his own moral authority for guidance, and choosing only such actions as can be substantiated by his moral code.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.